Henrik Ingo henrik.ingo at
Sun Sep 5 11:32:59 UTC 2010

2010/9/5 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) <raju at>:
>> This appears to void the GPL, as it appears to be an additional
>> restriction.  There appear to be no licences other than the
>> commercial ones.
>> It is possible they didn't mean commercial, but something more
>> limited, corresponding to things not permitted by the GPL.
>> However, it is likely that they failed to understand the GPL.
> It is also possible that they are falling into the common error of
> confusing "proprietary" with "commercial", and hence "open"/"free" for
> "non-commercial".  It takes a fair amount of education before people
> understand that FOSS licences are actually "commercial"; until they
> understand that, they tend to use "commercial" as the antonym of
> "free/open".  The confusion is probably due to the dual nature of the
> word "free".
> Wouldn't it be possible to contact UW and get a clarification from them?
> Give a bit of latitude, their intent appears to be clear: dual-license
> the toolkit, a la Qt.

I was going to say, early on, some time in 2001, even MySQL got this
wrong when their website said that for commercial uses of MySQL you
needed to pay for proprietary licenses. Someone then managed to
convince them that was wrong, and they never made such a mistake again
(except an overly eager newly hired and badly trained sales manager
every now and then).

henrik.ingo at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list